Two proposed constitutional amendments could change the way Arizona’s primary elections are conducted, and voters will have the chance to decide on one of these changes on November 5. Two competing initiatives, Proposition 140 and Proposition 133, propose different methods for choosing candidates to run in the general election.
The Arizona legislature sent Proposition 133 to the ballot to change the state’s constitution. With our proposal, we hope to provide uniformity to the direct primary election process at all levels of government, from the federal to the state and even the county.
In the event of a conflict between state and municipal legislation, such as charters, laws, ordinances, or regulations, the amendment would establish that the state’s law governing direct primary elections would govern. It states that all political parties with at least one eligible voter may nominate as many candidates for open seats as there are seats in the general election.
Senator Priya Sundareshan expressed concern about the potential overreach into their charter cities. “This bill would make it illegal for local political subdivisions to hold elections in a way that they think is best for their community.”
The purpose of this reform, according to Representative Austin Smith, the bill’s sponsor, is to eliminate ranked or jungle primaries and establish a uniform procedure for candidate nominations throughout all jurisdictions.
In the primary elections of any legitimate party, registered voters who do not identify with a party or who do not belong to a qualified party would be able to cast their ballots under Proposition 133.
Voters Are Unsure About Many Important North Carolina Elections, According To A New Poll
Preserving the long-established function of political parties in the electoral process, the proposal keeps the current practice of using partisan primaries to choose candidates.
Proponents of Proposition 133 say it will standardize and simplify the nomination process and bring it in line with the state’s general election legislation.
The inhabitants of the state have taken it upon themselves to begin Proposition 140, which aims to modify the methods used in both the primary and general elections.
All candidates, irrespective of party affiliation, would be required to appear on the same primary ballot according to the proposition. Like top-two or top-four primary systems, this method lets people choose candidates for office not because of their party affiliation but because of their actual qualifications.
Proposition 140 mandates the use of ranked-choice voting for general elections when three or more candidates make it past the primary. Supporters of this system argue that it will make voting more representative by letting people rank candidates in descending order of preference, which will lessen the influence of vote splitting.
While ranked-choice elections have reduced the number of Republican candidates elected in states like California, some disenchanted voters in Arizona remain skeptical about the new system’s potential here. “Ranked choice voting is a disaster,” Arizona Republican Chair Gina Swoboda declared, adding, “We’re not just talking about ‘California-ing’ our Arizona systems.”
However, independent voters would still be able to cast ballots in presidential preference primaries, and the bill would prohibit the use of public funding for any other kind of partisan primary election. With this provision, we want to see a more fair distribution of funds for elections and less money spent on partisan processes.
Any eligible voter, irrespective of party affiliation, would be able to cast a ballot in any primary election under Proposition 140.
The goal of this adjustment is to make the primary process more inclusive and to increase voter participation.
The people of Arizona who are in favor of Proposition 140 say these reforms will make voting easier and more representative of the people. A system that allows independent voters to participate while reducing partisanship is necessary, according to Sarah Smallhouse, president of the Thomas R. Brown Foundations and a champion of Proposition 140, who spoke with the Tucson Metro Chamber of Commerce.
According to Smallhouse, “(Proposition 140) encourages diversity of thought, innovation and it helps promote positive campaign.” He continued by saying, “Any voter can vote for any candidate they like.”
But there’s a contradiction between these two claims. Only the measure with the greater number of votes will be implemented if both achieve majority approval.
There is a chasm between the two main electoral reform proposals, 133 and 140. The goal of Proposition 140 is to establish a less biased system, whereas the goal of Proposition 133 is to keep and standardize the current party primary system.
Voters’ preferences for the future of the state’s electoral system will be reflected in the measures’ impact on candidate nomination and election processes.
